Never a better chance to get Gallagher?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Never a better chance to get Gallagher?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 7 of 8 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Eaglecoops CR3 14 Mar 22 4.28pm
If as we expect Abramovich is out for good then the cash cow will be gone. On that basis why would Chelsea continue to be as successful as they have in the past? Putting a load of talented kids together sounds great in principle but gelling them into a PL team that will challenge for trophies is something else. On this basis what is the big attraction? I’m pretty sure all these players want to play for a top team not an average one. Another point is that any buyer doesn’t get the ground so that will limit the value of the club.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 14 Mar 22 4.28pm

If as we expect Abramovich is out for good then the cash cow will be gone. On that basis why would Chelsea continue to be as successful as they have in the past? Putting a load of talented kids together sounds great in principle but gelling them into a PL team that will challenge for trophies is something else. On this basis what is the big attraction? I’m pretty sure all these players want to play for a top team not an average one.

Another point is that any buyer doesn’t get the ground so that will limit the value of the club.

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 14 Mar 22 4.31pm
Originally posted by Frickin Saweet parent clubs always say that. It keeps them motivated and their price up Agreed. And who says Tuchel will still be there come decision time? And who says he has the final word in who stays and who goes, even if he is still head coach when it matters?
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 14 Mar 22 4.31pm

Originally posted by Frickin Saweet

parent clubs always say that. It keeps them motivated and their price up

Agreed. And who says Tuchel will still be there come decision time? And who says he has the final word in who stays and who goes, even if he is still head coach when it matters?

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 14 Mar 22 4.38pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops If as we expect Abramovich is out for good then the cash cow will be gone. On that basis why would Chelsea continue to be as successful as they have in the past? Why does everyone assume that whoever buys the club won't continue funding it to current levels
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

14 Mar 22 4.38pm

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

If as we expect Abramovich is out for good then the cash cow will be gone. On that basis why would Chelsea continue to be as successful as they have in the past?

Why does everyone assume that whoever buys the club won't continue funding it to current levels

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 14 Mar 22 4.48pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Why does everyone assume that whoever buys the club won't continue funding it to current levels Because Abramovich was one of the richest men in the world who would routinely throw money away without a thought. Finding another of them whose money was earned in a legal fashion is getting pretty difficult.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 14 Mar 22 4.48pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Why does everyone assume that whoever buys the club won't continue funding it to current levels

Because Abramovich was one of the richest men in the world who would routinely throw money away without a thought. Finding another of them whose money was earned in a legal fashion is getting pretty difficult.

Alert a moderator to this post

kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 14 Mar 22 4.55pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops Because Abramovich was one of the richest men in the world who would routinely throw money away without a thought. Finding another of them whose money was earned in a legal fashion is getting pretty difficult. RA is owed £3bn by the club in directors loans. I suppose one of his rich mates might buy it ... oh hang on.. there all sanctioned... well maybe some rich arabs from the kingdom once they have finsihed executing anyone who steps out of line. Theyve just done 81 in one day! Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978
Alert a moderator to this post

kevlee

born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 14 Mar 22 4.55pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

RA is owed £3bn by the club in directors loans.
I suppose one of his rich mates might buy it ... oh hang on.. there all sanctioned...
well maybe some rich arabs from the kingdom once they have finsihed executing anyone who steps out of line. Theyve just done 81 in one day!

Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978

Alert a moderator to this post

MrRobbo Chaldon 14 Mar 22 4.56pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops Because Abramovich was one of the richest men in the world who would routinely throw money away without a thought. Finding another of them whose money was earned in a legal fashion is getting pretty difficult. Not an issue with any of the other owners. Newcastle's Saudi owners could buy every club in he prem without it even touching the sides of their wealth
Alert a moderator to this post

MrRobbo

Chaldon 14 Mar 22 4.56pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Not an issue with any of the other owners.

Newcastle's Saudi owners could buy every club in he prem without it even touching the sides of their wealth

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 14 Mar 22 5.06pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops Because Abramovich was one of the richest men in the world who would routinely throw money away without a thought. Surely anyone willing and able to fork out £2b to buy the club is going to want to ensure that it remains at the top of the tree and that will require high levels of funding
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

14 Mar 22 5.06pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Because Abramovich was one of the richest men in the world who would routinely throw money away without a thought.

Surely anyone willing and able to fork out £2b to buy the club is going to want to ensure that it remains at the top of the tree and that will require high levels of funding

Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet South Cronx 14 Mar 22 5.22pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Surely anyone willing and able to fork out £2b to buy the club is going to want to ensure that it remains at the top of the tree and that will require high levels of funding I disagree. Despite a different precedent being set by Man City and more recently Newcastle, the Govt, Prem and Chelsea FC will not want to court more controversy by selling to another owner with sickening human rights records and/or major levels corruption/exploitation. They'll go for a more 'responsible' owner who by default is going to have to rein in the ridiculous bankrolling.
Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet

South Cronx 14 Mar 22 5.22pm

Send a Private Message to Frickin Saweet

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Surely anyone willing and able to fork out £2b to buy the club is going to want to ensure that it remains at the top of the tree and that will require high levels of funding

I disagree. Despite a different precedent being set by Man City and more recently Newcastle, the Govt, Prem and Chelsea FC will not want to court more controversy by selling to another owner with sickening human rights records and/or major levels corruption/exploitation.

They'll go for a more 'responsible' owner who by default is going to have to rein in the ridiculous bankrolling.

Alert a moderator to this post

doombear Too far from Selhurst Park 14 Mar 22 6.12pm
Originally posted by Frickin Saweet I disagree. Despite a different precedent being set by Man City and more recently Newcastle, the Govt, Prem and Chelsea FC will not want to court more controversy by selling to another owner with sickening human rights records and/or major levels corruption/exploitation. They'll go for a more 'responsible' owner who by default is going to have to rein in the ridiculous bankrolling. I tend to agree. Abramovich basically seems to have given Chelsea whatever was asked for to get the players the club wanted (and the provided the club won a trophy or two each year the new money would keep coming in. Whoever buys the club will undoubtedly put money in (you don't spend £2bn+ and not do that) BUT I believe they will expect the club to operate on a significantly tighter budget than previously. Some players contracts won't be renewed. Lukaku may well be offered back to Italy, and instead of paying premium prices for the latest big name, the club may have to limit their marquee signings and focus more on players lower down the pecking order or young players already on their books like Gallagher, Broja and Gilmour. In short, It is more rather than less likely that Gallagher will be back at Chelsea next season than on loan to us or sold to another PL team (IMO, of course).
Alert a moderator to this post

doombear

Too far from Selhurst Park 14 Mar 22 6.12pm

Originally posted by Frickin Saweet

They'll go for a more 'responsible' owner who by default is going to have to rein in the ridiculous bankrolling.

I tend to agree. Abramovich basically seems to have given Chelsea whatever was asked for to get the players the club wanted (and the provided the club won a trophy or two each year the new money would keep coming in.

Whoever buys the club will undoubtedly put money in (you don't spend £2bn+ and not do that) BUT I believe they will expect the club to operate on a significantly tighter budget than previously. Some players contracts won't be renewed. Lukaku may well be offered back to Italy, and instead of paying premium prices for the latest big name, the club may have to limit their marquee signings and focus more on players lower down the pecking order or young players already on their books like Gallagher, Broja and Gilmour.

In short, It is more rather than less likely that Gallagher will be back at Chelsea next season than on loan to us or sold to another PL team (IMO, of course).

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 15 Mar 22 3.59pm
People seem not to understand that Abramovish didn't throw any money away on Chelsea. None. Abramovich's money was plundered from the Russian state/people, and done dependent on the largesse of the Russian President (Putin). Using that money to sportswash Russia's international reputation and standing was an investment in Russia, not in Chelsea, and was anything but throwing away cash. Look at it like this: see Chelsea as a giant TV Station with a global audience that Russia bought so it had a platform via which to advertise itself and polish its international reputation. All companies spend money on doing that. It's not a "throw away". And Russia used Chelsea very effectively indeed to achieve that end. They got far more impact and benefit from owning and investing in Chelsea than they'd have ever got from advertising in any other medium. The proof of how effective the strategy was? Well, despite everything we now understand about Russian money, Chelsea supporters are still singing Abramovich's name. That tells you all you need to know about a). how easy it is to pull the wool over people's eyes, and b). why sports teams are so attractive to dubious foreign investors. No questions are asked. The plain truth is that the hearts of football supporters are for sale to the highest bidder, as long as he's bidding on their club. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 15 Mar 22 3.59pm

People seem not to understand that Abramovish didn't throw any money away on Chelsea. None. Abramovich's money was plundered from the Russian state/people, and done dependent on the largesse of the Russian President (Putin). Using that money to sportswash Russia's international reputation and standing was an investment in Russia, not in Chelsea, and was anything but throwing away cash. Look at it like this: see Chelsea as a giant TV Station with a global audience that Russia bought so it had a platform via which to advertise itself and polish its international reputation. All companies spend money on doing that. It's not a "throw away". And Russia used Chelsea very effectively indeed to achieve that end. They got far more impact and benefit from owning and investing in Chelsea than they'd have ever got from advertising in any other medium.

The proof of how effective the strategy was? Well, despite everything we now understand about Russian money, Chelsea supporters are still singing Abramovich's name. That tells you all you need to know about a). how easy it is to pull the wool over people's eyes, and b). why sports teams are so attractive to dubious foreign investors. No questions are asked. The plain truth is that the hearts of football supporters are for sale to the highest bidder, as long as he's bidding on their club.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 15 Mar 22 4.05pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops If as we expect Abramovich is out for good then the cash cow will be gone. There is no proof that will be the case. It depends entirely on who buys the club. What the present situation teaches us is about the need for the game itself to be administered differently because there is more than one Abramovich in the world and more than one interested in buying a PL club. The cash cow will only go for sure when the Premier League changes its ownership rules and standards and, likely, puts far more spending guidelines in place as well. As long as football is happy to let outcomes on the pitch be directly and solely determined by the size of a team's (or its owner's) bank account, very little will substantively change. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 15 Mar 22 4.05pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

If as we expect Abramovich is out for good then the cash cow will be gone.

There is no proof that will be the case. It depends entirely on who buys the club. What the present situation teaches us is about the need for the game itself to be administered differently because there is more than one Abramovich in the world and more than one interested in buying a PL club. The cash cow will only go for sure when the Premier League changes its ownership rules and standards and, likely, puts far more spending guidelines in place as well. As long as football is happy to let outcomes on the pitch be directly and solely determined by the size of a team's (or its owner's) bank account, very little will substantively change.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 15 Mar 22 5.21pm
Originally posted by sydtheeagle There is no proof that will be the case. It depends entirely on who buys the club. What the present situation teaches us is about the need for the game itself to be administered differently because there is more than one Abramovich in the world and more than one interested in buying a PL club. The cash cow will only go for sure when the Premier League changes its ownership rules and standards and, likely, puts far more spending guidelines in place as well. As long as football is happy to let outcomes on the pitch be directly and solely determined by the size of a team's (or its owner's) bank account, very little will substantively change. There is no proof it won’t be either. How many billionaires are there who want to squander money because I don’t see too many football teams making profits.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 15 Mar 22 5.21pm

Originally posted by sydtheeagle

There is no proof it won’t be either. How many billionaires are there who want to squander money because I don’t see too many football teams making profits.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 7 of 8 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Never a better chance to get Gallagher?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors